Well that’s very interesting! Thanks for picking up on that change to accept Echeandia graminea as a distinct taxon. Thanks to everyone who suggested emailing bi@kew.org. Clearly that was the solution.
Hello I asked about accepted Variations of Fagus sylvatica - and Rafaël from kew.org told me that the backbone of POWO is Wcvp - and they use the IPNI system - which is missing subvariantions mainly from old world (about 200000) but they are working on it - so as long as IPNI is not up to date they will not apear in iNats - perhaps the newer website World flora online might be an alternative - most subvariants I search are listed with literature
Michael
1 Like
I just took a look at World Flora Online and it looks just as problematic as POWO and possibly more so. The one genus I looked at had taxa missing that are on POWO, the choices of what was recognized vs. not followed no published treatment, and there was no justification for why choices were made.
4 Likes
Ok all the same Problems :-)
It is always worth reading the POWO about pages:
"It is important to stress that the references can only be added to names used in the cited publication and therefore when a genus is sunk only the genus and the type species may have references as the other names are not mentioned in the paper that sinks the genus. The reference may also be under one of the homotypic names, it is therefore important to consider all references under the accepted name, its synonyms, the genus and the synonyms of the genus to get the full picture of the evidence for a particular species taxonomy. "
1 Like
and on the WCSP website, POWO’s names backbone:
" Acceptance of species and infraspecific taxa is based not only on assessments of literature and common practice but also, where possible, by reference to specialist advice and (where necessary) to the herbarium or living collections. The general rule is that the latest published species taxonomy and synonymy is followed within the accepted generic concepts. The checklist preferred view may however differ if experts advise otherwise, if it is clear the latest publication was not aware of the previous taxonomy (as it is e.g. not included in the bibliography) or a more global authoritative publication is followed rather than a partial local one. Different taxonomies are expressed (from 2005) in the references cited. "
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.